On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:48, John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Before we can even start thinking about PaX on Debian we need to find a > | maintainer for the kernel patch who will package new versions of the > | patch which apply to the Debian kernel source tree. We have had a few > > Are you talking PaX or grsecurity? PaX is significantly less invasive > than grsecurity. There will still be issues, of course.
PaX. AFAIK the only PaX kernel-patch package in Debian is the Adamantix kernel source, which has RSBAC and a bunch of other stuff, and the GRSec patch. Neither of them apply to the Debian kernel source tree. > Where would I see debian's 2.6.7 source tree? I'm not a deb user, > remember, so I'll need a tarball or something. http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/k/ > | We have recently discussed this on at least one of the lists you > | posted to. > > | The end result of the discussion is that GCC is getting another SSP type > | technology known as "mudflap". Mudflap depends on some major new > | features of > | GCC 3.5, so it looks like we won't be getting this until GCC 3.5 as the > | Debian GCC people don't want to merge in other patches which have no > | apparent chance of being included upstream. > > Then don't use ProPolice/SSP for now. That seems to be what will happen. I'd rather see SSP included sooner, but I guess it won't happen. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
